Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting February 20th, 2025
OPENING
Nine of the eleven commissioners are present. Commissioner Thomason is absent. Commissioner Baker arrives 1 hour and 16 minutes after the meeting begins. This is Commissioner Thomason’s second absence. According to the rules set by this commission, Commissioner Thomason cannot miss any more meetings without violating this commission’s attendance policy. Also present are City Attorney Pete Smith, Attorney Joe Gorfida, City Secretary Aimee Nemer, and Deputy City Secretary Crystal Brown. Please watch the 93-minute recording of the meeting in the video above. The only necessary battery change occurred when Commissioner Baker arrived, so I think I was able to finally have no gaps in coverage for this meeting. Though, in an effort to boost the audio, the recording is a bit noisy. Lowering your volume as you listen should help with this.
Sec. Nemer mentions handouts that she has provided to the commissioners. These handouts include tonight’s agenda, draft minutes of the last meeting, Atty Smith’s text amendments, and public comments from Mark Steger. Chair Bright first acknowledges written public comments from Mark Steger. He then calls for public speakers. Unfortunately, I am once again the only speaker. I briefly addressed Council’s comments on commissioners not wanting to be recorded. I asked any commissioners who wish to share their concerns to come speak with me. (None did.) I also asked once more for the commission to add other disciplinary actions to the list of appealable actions employees can bring to the Civil Service Appeals Board. Finally, I asked them to consider changing the number of signatures required on a petition for Recall, Initiative, or Referendum. I provided a chart that compares our signature requirement to eleven other metroplex cities. I will attach that chart below. Specifically, I asked them to consider attaching the threshold to the number of votes in the last municipal election as many other cities do. We currently require a number of signatures equal to 10% of registered voters in the city, which amounts to a higher number than what would win such an election based on voting history.
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 9 & 10
Next, the commission considers text amendments brought by Atty Smith based on feedback from the last meeting. Atty Smith answers the commission’s question about the 75% vote requirement for the five-member Zoning Board of Adjustments. This requirement, as well as the allowance to compel the attendance of witnesses, comes from state law. Commissioner Strecker suggests amending language in the charter to reflect the language in state law, “Each case … must be heard by at least 75% of the members.” Currently, the charter reads, “…shall be heard by the minimum of 75% of the members…” He also asks that “the” be changed to “a” in the same sentence. These, in addition to Atty Smith’s text amendments for Sec. 9.10 are all grammatical edits. This combination of amendments is unanimously recommended by the commission.
In Sec. 9.11 and 9.12, Atty Smith does recommend moving the Minimum Standard and Payroll subsections from Sec. 9.12 to Sec. 9.11. Additionally, “books and papers” in the Appeals Proceedings subsection of 9.12 is updated to “any documents, records and files of any type”. Commissioner Strecker also catches an error of duplicated text in Atty Smith’s text amendment for Sec. 9.11. Atty Smith’s memo states that, due to the status of federal law and evolving presidential executive orders, he does not recommend changes to the anti-discrimination subsection. The removal of language related to the reduction of forces as HR Director Moreno explained on Feb. 6th is also included in this section’s amendments.
Commissioner Dunn asks to consider adding performance evaluations to the list of appealable disciplinary actions that can be brought by employees to the Civil Service Appeals Board. Atty Smith explains that performance evaluations aren’t something that the Appeals Board hears. Commissioner Dunn asks if this is because of law or Richardson’s policy. Atty Smith answers that it is because of the rules that Richardson has for civil service. Atty Gorfida states that this could be appealed via the formal grievance process. This is usually department-specific. Sec. Nemer reads the statement from HR Director Moreno. His statement reads, “All salary increases are based on merit. An employee’s salary is linked to their annual performance. Department directors have the authority to determine the specific salary increase each employee will receive depending on annual performance. Evaluations are given to all civil service employees by their supervisors. If an employee doesn’t agree with their evaluation results, they can appeal to their department director. These appeals aren’t heard by the Civil Service Appeals Board. If the employee falls below the minimum performance standards on the evaluation, the employee will be called before the Board to show cause why the employee should not be released from employment.”
Commissioner Strecker asks if a disciplinary action such as the example I gave about a police officer being assigned an undesirable shift as a disciplinary action can be taken up through the grievance process. Atty Gorfida answers that these situations can be pursued through the grievance process separate from the Civil Service Appeals Board. Commissioner Pratt asks how this would be pursued. Atty Smith answers that complaints could be made through the chain of command all the way up to the Police Chief in this example. Chair Bright asks how common this process is compared to other cities. Atty Gorfida answers that Richardson is unique in that it applies civil service rules to all employees. Commissioner Gaziani asks if the language “Civil Service Appeals Board of Appeals” is proper or should be improved. Atty Gorfida suggests that they re-word the paragraph and bring it back for approval.
Amendments for Sec. 9.11 are approved unanimously. Atty Smith offers amended wording for Sec. 9.12. He reads through the section to make sure everyone understands the grammatical changes. These amendments are unanimously approved.
The commission asked Atty Smith to review the term “unskilled labor” in Sec. 10.02. Atty Smith reports that this term is appropriate in this context. Atty Smith does recommend deleting Sec. 10.07 since it is a duplicate of Sec. 9.12.a. This is unanimously approved by the commission.
ARTICLES 5 & 14 – RECALL, INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM
Sec. Nemer now distributes a document comparing the language in the charters of Allen, Carrollton, Frisco, Irving, McKinney, and Plano. Four of these cities attach their petition thresholds to the number of votes in the last municipal election. Only two of these cities attach the threshold to the number of registered voters like Richardson currently does. Atty Smith explains the powers of Recall, Initiative, and Referendum. All of these require a petition with enough signatures to put the question on a ballot in an election. Recall addresses the question of removing a councilmember. Initiative addresses the question of a citizen-initiated ordinance. Referendum addresses the question of repealing a Council-adopted ordinance.
Commissioner Strecker asks about a section of the Texas Election Code that refers to the notation ‘S’ on the list of registered voters. Sec. Nemer answers that this refers to a suspended voter. Sec. Nemer confirms that 7,209 signatures would currently be required for a petition to be valid. Commissioner Dunn supports keeping the petition threshold the way it is. Chair Bright reads comments submitted by Commissioner Thomason. Commissioner Thomason agrees there should be a high bar to enact any of these three powers. He asks to check with Atty Smith to confirm that this threshold is consistent with other municipalities. The document that Sec. Nemer provided in addition to my own wider comparison confirms that our threshold is not consistent with most other municipalities.
Commissioner Pratt also supports keeping thresholds as they are. Commissioner Gaziani suggests that the list of registered voters may not reflect the number of people who still vote in Richardson. He states that some folks might move away and forget to update their registration. He agrees that the current threshold requires more signatures than the amount of votes that would win such an election. He agrees with maintaining a high threshold but suggests attaching a higher percentage to the number of actual votes cast in the last municipal election.
Commissioner Pratt moves the conversation to a different subject. He asks about the last charter petition and if any of the financial backers for that petition were identified. Sec. Nemer answers that charter petitions are covered under a different section of law. She answers that petitioners had to be identified on the petition. Commissioner Pratt asks if they can require financial backers of charter petitions to be identified. Atty Smith answers that these types of petitions are not what they are considering tonight. They are covered under statutory rights. (I assume that means state law.) Atty Smith states that the city doesn’t have the ability to change the statutory rights. Commissioner Pratt replies that, if transparency is good for the government, it ought to apply to those who seek to change government as well. He disagrees with the ability to remain anonymous while funding any type of petition. Atty Smith reminds Commissioner Pratt that the petition would only place the question on the ballot. A majority of votes in that election would still be required to pass any change.
Atty Smith assures the commissioner that petitions are not anonymous. Commissioner Pratt still wants to require financial reporting requirements for petitions. Sec. Nemer clarifies that, in order to begin distributing a petition for Recall, five registered voters must provide written notice to the city secretary. Commissioner Dunn now asks Chair Bright to enforce rules preventing visitors from disrupting the meeting in response to a comment made by a visitor. The visitor apologizes for making the remark. (It wasn’t me.)
Commissioner Pratt asks if the language in Sec. 5.02 is redundant. Subsection (g) states that if the councilmember that citizens seek to recall doesn’t resign in response to a petition, an election shall be ordered. Subsection (h) states that, if the councilmember resigns, no election shall be ordered. Commissioner Pratt sees this language as unnecessary since one implies the other. Atty Smith does not see this language as redundant. Chair Bright also doesn’t see the language as redundant.
Commissioner Gaziani asks to bring the conversation back to the question on the petition thresholds. He cites the chart I provided comparing what many other surrounding cities use for their thresholds. He still would like the commission to consider attaching the threshold to the number of votes in the last municipal election. Commissioner Dunn asks why they would consider a threshold of 30% of the number of votes if it takes 50% of votes to elect someone. (The thresholds would place the question on the ballot. 50% of votes in that election would still be required to pass the action.) Commissioner Gaziani replies that the percentage can be debated but the first question he wants to consider is on attaching the threshold to the number of votes instead of the number of registered voters.
Commissioner Benner states that 30% of the number of votes seems too low to recall someone. She thinks the bar should be higher to recall someone. Commissioner Strecker agrees. Vice-Chair Quirk asks if the petition itself removes the councilmember for a Recall petition or if the question would then go on a ballot. Atty Smith clarifies that, if a councilmember doesn’t resign, the question would go on a ballot and require a majority of votes in an election to pass. Chair Bright states that there seems to be a consensus on the commission that they want to keep the petition threshold attached to the number of registered voters. There is also consensus that 10% of registered voters is a proper threshold.
Vice-Chair Quirk asks if there are any specified grounds that must be claimed on a Recall petition. Atty Smith answers that there aren’t any specified grounds. Commissioner Pratt asks if they need to specify that “qualified voter” means registered voter in Richardson. Atty Smith offers to put that as a defined term in the charter. Commissioner Dunn agrees with specifying that they must be qualified voters of the city.
Commissioner Dunn asks Commissioner Gaziani to elaborate on his comments regarding the list of registered voters potentially being inaccurate or outdated. She states that anyone living outside the city should not be registered to vote in Richardson. Commissioner Gaziani replies that, though someone may be registered to vote in Richardson, they might not end up voting if they live outside the city. Commissioner Gaziani doesn’t think it’s realistic to expect all registered voters to vote. Commissioner Dunn thinks the opposite.
Commissioner Baker now arrives at the meeting. Chair Bright reads Commissioner Thomason’s comments on Article 14. He doesn’t see any necessary changes unless city staff thinks otherwise. Commissioner Strecker suggests amending language in Sec. 14.01 to read “signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least 10% of the total number of qualified voters…” The section currently reads “equal in number to 10%...” He wants to add “at least”.
Commissioner Pratt asks how two contradicting petitions would be handled. Atty Smith answers that this is honestly something that isn’t settled yet in law. He states that Houston had to deal with exactly this situation. Legal arguments would have to be made. The amount of votes each has in favor may be a factor considered. Atty Smith will research the question and bring back an answer. Commissioner Pratt also asks for financial transparency requirements for Article 14. Vice-Chair Quirk asks for clarification on Sec. 14.06. Atty Smith will review this section for clarified language.
Sec. Nemer asks if language regarding verifying the validity of signatures should be the same for Article 14 as in Article 5. Atty Smith will come back with consistent language. With that, the commission finishes their business and the meeting adjourns.